Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:Marj and I could not have made it more clear that secular spirituality need have nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience. Your response above is very weak, displaying mechanistic thinking and a general lack of comprehension. There is not much point wasting time unless you can lift your game.

Greta wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:Eusociality and sociality might have things in common, just like agency in the paramecium might have something in common with human agency, but humans cannot be reduced to parameciums.

An inappropriate analogy that misses the point. A chimp would have been a better example because the difference between human social structures and those of other other eusocial animals is not great.

Greta wrote: Or do you think humans operate more like a pride of lions or a herd of gazelle, or like a bacterial colony? Or are they more like an ant or bee colony? We are clearly eusocial - no other model is even remotely close. It is no surprise that, as with everything humans do, we extend on that which other animals do.

Greta wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sure, I never doubt diversity is the way the go, but I'm also aware of the ways people can be cheated into believing they are moving forward and immersed in diversity, in other words, fooled by the appearance of difference...

Yes, that can happen. However, not in this case unless you want to suggest that I am a crystal-waving fucktard again.

Greta wrote:No crystals. No homoeopathy. No chakras, aura cleansing, anti-vaxxing, anti-GMO or anti-science. No religion. No nuns, priests, ministers, rabbis or imams. No churches, creeds, cults, or even ideologies. No pseudoscience. Whatsoever.

Conde, do you understand now?

"In the West, yoga has been "modernized, medicalized, and transformed into a system of physical culture".

Western yoga students cite health, fitness, and stress reduction as reasons for yogic practice,

However, many practice in order to reach "contemplative states of consciousness and spirituality", a goal that falls within the realm of secular spirituality

As such, this medicalized, secularized version of meditation has been allowed into secular institutions within Western society, such as hospitals and schools

currently there is a huge wave of political correctness

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:57 amUnfortunately, CL chooses to focus on certain aspects of the wiki content, despite being corrected.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:03 am Marjoram_blues:

How can philosophy self-correct ? The content or syllabus could change…

In my opinion, most importantly, by a recognition of the centrality of what is often derisively called psycholism and lived experience.I am not prone to use the word 'spiritualism' because in order to be understood one must first dig out from the layers of sediment that have accumulated, and even when one has gone through the effort, as some posts here make clear, the term is still obstinately and willfully misunderstood; but having said that, the self-correction can come about through the work of Solomon, Hadot, Nehamas, and others.

MB:
Do you mean 'psychologism' ? I have looked this up and remain unclear as to its meaning.
I have an inkling it might involve a deeper appreciation of human behaviour and psyche; the importance of developing well-being in both mental and physical health.

I agree about the obvious difficulties in using the word 'spirituality' ( not the same as spiritualism).
Indeed, I mentioned near the beginning that I appreciated why Solomon preferred 'naturalized' instead of 'secular' and that it was a pity there was no real alternative to 'spirituality'.
Given the amount of time and energy expended on correcting continual misunderstandings, I will take time out to read Solomon and others.

I am not even sure what is currently studied, or its main focus.

It varies from school to school and even from class to class. As in other fields, some change comes about when the old guard begins to retire, prevailing views are chipped away at but sometimes swept away. The dissenting views of a few gain traction, students become teachers, and their students come to feel much less pressure to defend their views against a waning prevailing view. In philosophy there may be renewed interest in a philosopher or some aspect of his work seen from a new perspective, cross disciplinary work such as neurophilosophy, philosophical biology, and philosophical problems in physics are currently strong.

MB: Yes, it is a slow process to change prevailing views. I note that female philosophers came to the fore during the war when unfortunately the males had to go fight and be killed. I did wonder whether the mention of spirituality might be offputting due to its association with emotions, seen traditionally as being related to females; rationality being the province of males.
Fortunately, attitudes seem to be changing. The 'old guard' of predominantly white males in Western Philosophy being supplemented by other human perspectives.

Is Philosophy really in trouble ?

In some sense I think it is. Narrow specialization, jargon, and an emphasis on unassailable arguments runs counter to the tradition of philosophy seeing the big picture. I don’t think things are dire. There is still interesting work being done. For some idea take a click on “interviews” here: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/.
....

An interesting case is political philosophy. Important work by political philosophers often does not fit well in the academic culture of either philosophy or political science. At the same time theoretical physics has become more philosophical. It may be that old divisions will come to loose their clear distinctions. Multidisciplinary work is in one sense a narrowing of fields but in another an enlargement.

MB: Thank you for all links and references. Could more of a focus on the practical applications of political philosophy be a way forward. Getting in to the nitty gritty of real life policy and its consequences to supplement the theory. Marcus Aurelius was pretty much hands-on.
Perhaps we need a Philosopher Queen

Do you mean 'psychologism' ?

I have looked this up and remain unclear as to its meaning.

I did wonder whether the mention of spirituality might be offputting due to its association with emotions, seen traditionally as being related to females; rationality being the province of males.

Could more of a focus on the practical applications of political philosophy be a way forward.

Greta wrote: Conde, I have made clear what I see as secular spirituality. I would rather not have the Wiki article attributed to me - I happen to have my own mind which means that my version of secular spirituality does not coincide with Wikipedia's.

Why are you attributing things I haven't said to me? Why try to undermine my position with things I haven't said? Why not address what I did actually say?

Greta wrote: BTW, all species and their modes of organisation are unique to some extent, not just humans. Are we going to claim that zebras don't organise into true harem societies because the females don't stay in related groups like lionesses and elephants? No. There are differences, obviously, but more similarities than differences. Same with humans and other eusocial species.

Greta wrote:
So if I am supposedly embracing pseudoscience for seeing the connectivity and passion of life to be spirituality then you must be embracing humanity as divine and transcendent of other species. A closet creationist perhaps?

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:57 am
Unfortunately, CL chooses to focus on certain aspects of the wiki content, despite being corrected.

It is fine to be challenged - in the spirit of philosophy.
However, this type of continual misrepresentation is not.

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:29 pm What is 'Secular Spirituality' ?
Would you agree with the suggestion below that it is 'the ultimate goal of philosophy'?
From wiki:

According to Robert C. Solomon, an American Professor of Philosophy, "spirituality is coextensive with religion and it is not incompatible with or opposed to science or the scientific outlook. Naturalized spirituality is spirituality without any need for the 'other‐worldly'. Spirituality is one of the goals, perhaps the ultimate goal, of philosophy."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:36 pm
...There is an interesting parallel between the Socratic revolution and the focus on science in philosophy today. Socrates turned from the natural philosophy of his predecessors to a concern for the human things, that is to say, political philosophy.

Plato and Aristotle’s answer was not so much a focus on practical applications of political philosophy but rather the political education of aristocratic gentlemen who would become the rulers of the polis.

One thing that should be mentioned in the regard is the relationship between the public and the private. Political education must be based on the politics of the soul. To bring this back full circle, the guardians and future “philosopher kings (and queens)” of Plato’s Republic were from the “spirited class” (Greek thymos or thumos) , the education of the philosopher begins with an education of the spirited part of the soul. Although thumos or spiritedness is not the same as what we generally mean by spirituality, the education of the philosopher is, as described in the Republic, a spiritual education. It begins with the cultivation and training of those things that characterize thumos - feelings, emotions, anger, courage, loyalty, desire for recognition. It is, however, not simply a matter of moderation of high-spiritedness, spiritedness must to appropriately directed to those things worthy of honor, loyalty, and recognition. This ties together nicely with Solomon’s “thoughtful love of life”.

It's 'Plato - the Collected Dialogues, including the Letters', edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntingdon Cairns. But where to start ? The Introduction, then the Phaedrus ?

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:49 pm marjoram_blues:

It's 'Plato - the Collected Dialogues, including the Letters', edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntingdon Cairns. But where to start ? The Introduction, then the Phaedrus ?

I’d skip the introduction. The Phaedrus is a good place to start. It is a rich and varied dialogues whose outward simplicity belies its depth. Translation can be a problem. The impression that Plato is old-fashioned usually has to do with old-fashioned translation. Try to look past that.

A central issue of the dialogue is on reading and writing. Paying careful attention to it, is a key for how to read Plato (but of course not only Plato). The dialogues are written as carefully composed wholes and should be read as such. He uses the analogy of an animal where each part has a function and all work together as a whole.

In line with Plato’s dialogic form I think it most appropriate to read the dialogues in dialogue with others. In that spirit perhaps you will start a topic once you have gotten underway of finished the dialogue.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:36 pm
.To bring this back full circle, the guardians and future “philosopher kings (and queens)” of Plato’s Republic were from the “spirited class” (Greek thymos or thumos) , the education of the philosopher begins with an education of the spirited part of the soul. Although thumos or spiritedness is not the same as what we generally mean by spirituality, the education of the philosopher is, as described in the Republic, a spiritual education. It begins with the cultivation and training of those things that characterize thumos - feelings, emotions, anger, courage, loyalty, desire for recognition. It is, however, not simply a matter of moderation of high-spiritedness, spiritedness must to appropriately directed to those things worthy of honor, loyalty, and recognition. This ties together nicely with Solomon’s “thoughtful love of life”.